Trump to end DACA: report - Polidicks

[QUOTE] President Trump plans to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program "as it exists today" on Friday, Fox News reports. Under DACA, nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children have received work permits and deferral from deportation. According to Fox, a senior administration official told correspondent John Roberts that Trump would end the program "as early as" Friday. [/QUOTE] [editline]/[/editline] Mod Edit: updated source to one that meets our source selection criteria. [url]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-to-end-daca-report/ar-AAr3d0l[/url]

Piece of shit human being.

Distraction from Manafort and Obama was a big proponent of DACA so it's cynically aimed right at pleasing his core base and fuck the rest of the country.

Fucking scumbag. Imagine your life exactly as it is now, with the only exception being that your parents brought you to this country when you were an infant. That wasn't a decision you ever had any say in, and it's never been a huge impediment to you either way. You were raised in this country, having spent your entire life going to school here, making friends, finding work, and so on. You don't speak any language other ours, and in all likelihood you have never taken an actual step in another country. This is the reality of the situation for those protected by the DACA. Now, they could have their lives ripped away from them and be deported to countries that they've never even [I]been to[/I], where they don't even [I]speak the language[/I], for crimes that were committed by other people and were entirely outside of their control. This is shattering the lives of children and teenagers based [I]solely[/I] on their racial heritage. This is racism. Pure and simple. There is [B]no[/B] reason to do this other than to appease the white supremacists that Trump has been so openly courting, because he clearly sympathizes with their disgusting ideology.

[Media]https://twitter.com/satanseyebrows/status/826149998811344896[/media] Forever relevant.

As a note: I updated the source in the OP, as "The Hill" does not meet our source selection criteria due to its "Mixed" rate of factual reporting. [editline]/[/editline] Whoops, I linked to the wrong article lol. Fixed.

sooner or later he's gonna run out of controversial stuff to distract from the Mueller probe. maybe that's when he'll actually shoot someone

judging children for the sins of their parents. come on evangelicals defend that [editline]31st August 2017[/editline] how convenient we have a list of people who reported themselves voluntarily and are now going to be forcibly deported.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52634373]how convenient we have a list of people who reported themselves voluntarily and are now going to be forcibly deported.[/QUOTE] The terrible risk of implementing DACA in the first place was that the individuals it serviced would end up even easier to deport by a future administration, since they were required to provide their information to the federal government to receive consideration for the program. It's not pretty, and I'm sure the program was never intended to be taken out so soon after its establishment, but we must remember that it was also never intended to be more than a precarious stop-gap while waiting for the proper Congressional balance to provide a permanent solution for these illegals. It's depressing, but it's reality.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52634429]The terrible risk of implementing DACA in the first place was that the individuals it serviced would end up even easier to deport by a future administration, since they were required to provide their information to the federal government to receive consideration for the program. It's not pretty, and I'm sure the program was never intended to be taken out so soon after its establishment, but we must remember that it was also never intended to be more than a precarious stop-gap while waiting for the proper Congressional balance to provide a permanent solution for these illegals. It's depressing, but it's reality.[/QUOTE] That hardly excuses fucking over an entire generation. Trump has no reason to end DACA except to appeal to racists and to erode Obama's legacy. We're talking about people who grew up in the US, who speak English, whose friends and coworkers are Americans, who will marry Americans, who live and work exactly the same as the born citizens around them. These people are not threatening the American Way. You can say "BUT THEY'RE ILLEGALS" all you want -- the fact is they're here now, the American Way is the only way they know, and sending them back to a land and a culture to which they no longer belong -- because of actions they never had a say in, and 'crimes' they never committed -- [b]does not help our country.[/b] It's just more typical Republican bullshit: it makes their voters Feel Good(tm) by massaging their prejudices, but doesn't actually benefit our society at all. (Like how they love GET TOUGH sentencing laws, which don't actually lower crime rates.) The preservation of innocent life is far more important than rigidly following ~the law~, especially when it leads to stupid situations that benefit no one. e: And if a Democrat-controlled government ever bans firearms, I expect to hear you say "it's depressing, but it's reality" and dutifully turn in your guns. After all, [i]it's the law.[/i] If you're ever homeless and can't afford food, I expect to hear you say "it's depressing, but it's reality," and starve in the gutter rather than steal a loaf of bread. After all, [i]it's the law.[/i] If you'd been in Pennsylvania in 1860 and found an escaped slave on your doorstep, exhausted and scared, I would expect to hear you say "it's depressing, but it's reality," and dutifully send him back to Virginia. After all, [i]it's the law.[/i] If you'd been in New York City in 1925, I'd expect you to [i]never, ever touch a drop of alcohol[/i], saying "it's depressing, but it's reality," and report any of your friends who did. After all, [i]it's the law.[/i] If you'd been in Germany in 1942 and your Jewish neighbor wanted you to swear that he was a Catholic, I would expect to hear you say "it's depressing, but it's reality," and dutifully turn him over to the Gestapo. After all, [i]it's the law![/i] If you'd been in the Soviet Union in 1960 and your son had been denounced for listening to American music, I would expect to hear you say "it's depressing, but it's reality," and dutifully turn him over to the KGB, never to be seen again. [highlight]After all, [i][u]it's the law![/u][/i][/highlight]

[QUOTE=Chonch;52634429]The terrible risk of implementing DACA in the first place was that the individuals it serviced would end up even easier to deport by a future administration, since they were required to provide their information to the federal government to receive consideration for the program. It's not pretty, and I'm sure the program was never intended to be taken out so soon after its establishment, but we must remember that it was also never intended to be more than a precarious stop-gap while waiting for the proper Congressional balance to provide a permanent solution for these illegals. It's depressing, but it's reality.[/QUOTE] What's with this regretful fatalism

[QUOTE=Chonch;52634429]The terrible risk of implementing DACA in the first place was that the individuals it serviced wound up even easier to deport, since they were required to provide their information to the federal government to receive consideration. It's not pretty, and I'm sure the program was never intended to be taken out so soon after its establishment, but we must remember that it was also never intended to be more than a stop-gap while waiting for the proper Congressional balance to provide a permanent solution. It's depressing, but it's reality.[/QUOTE] "Our healthcare is kinda fucked, expensive and not everyone gets it, and some will have to choose between a roof and health. But a majority can get help." "Let's throw it all out, no one gets anything." Literally GOP/Trumpers logic. It's like tearing down your house in winter because it's kinda drafty, before you've managed to secure new lodgings. I will never understand how that is better than simply fixing the draft, [I]you vicious idiot.[/I] It's sickening to watch how you're willing to screw yourselves and a lot of other people because a system isn't perfect. [I]That[/I] is depressing. Nothing will ever be perfect, [I]that[/I] is reality. And honestly, if you think the US stock has risen in the eyes of the world after Trump, you're even more deluded than that I thought.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52634429]The terrible risk of implementing DACA in the first place was that t[B]he individuals it serviced would end up even easier to deport by a future administration[/B], since they were required to provide their information to the federal government to receive consideration for the program.[/QUOTE] And this is also why immigrants and immigrant communities are less likely to report crimes in their area, or to cooperate with the authorities: a fear of being deported if they show up on anyone's radar. [QUOTE=Chonch:52634429] [B]while waiting for the proper Congressional balance to provide a permanent solution for these illegals[/B]. [/QUOTE] This is the opposite of what we have right now: our balance and separation of powers is all kind of fuckulated at the moment. [QUOTE=Chonch:52634429] It's depressing, but it's reality.[/QUOTE] I don't know what reality is, anymore (or so it feels). But sure, depressing is one word for it. So is unjust. Infuriating. A violation of what many people think America represents. A betrayal of trust, for those affected. A choice to forget that America was/is built and inhabited primarily by immigrants. There are so many awful things to feel about this decision by our President the half-melted push-pop.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52634429]The terrible risk of implementing DACA in the first place was that the individuals it serviced would end up even easier to deport by a future administration, since they were required to provide their information to the federal government to receive consideration for the program. It's not pretty, and I'm sure the program was never intended to be taken out so soon after its establishment, but we must remember that it was also never intended to be more than a precarious stop-gap while waiting for the proper Congressional balance to provide a permanent solution for these illegals. It's depressing, but it's reality.[/QUOTE] I love how you're calling them "these illegals." I can almost taste the scorn and disdain oozing from your post. The people affected by this are almost all better Americans than you.

[QUOTE=Luni;52634462]The preservation of innocent life is far more important than rigidly following the law. Slavery being legal in 1860 didn't stop abolitionists; alcohol being illegal in 1925 didn't stop [B]anyone, ever[/B]; I imagine, if the federal government banned guns, no conservative would obey it. Laws are not, or should not, be followed simply ~because it's the law~.[/QUOTE] I agree with you here in some part -- the law should be respected and enforced in this country not simply because it is made so, but because it is determined just and effected by the will of the people through their duly elected representatives. DACA did not follow this process, but was put in place by executive decree. The President is given that power to use at his discretion, but was it right to sidestep the legislature like this? Was it appropriate for this situation? These are difficult questions that the administration has understandably hesitated to address, since many of DACA's recipients have sympathetic stories, but as a matter of fidelity to our Constitution and its separation of powers -- and to a lesser note, his campaign promises -- Trump must end the program. If we are going to amnesty an entire class of people, I believe it should be done with the consent of our established legislative system. This was the case for the African slave trade, it was the case for indentured servitude and slavery, it was the case for Prohibition, and I fully expect it to be the case for any future questioning of the Second Amendment. [QUOTE=EcksDee;52634558]I love how you're calling them "these illegals." I can almost taste the scorn and disdain oozing from your post. The people affected by this are almost all better Americans than you.[/QUOTE] I meant no disrespect with that term, and I apologize if it came off that way. However, I think we both understand effectively what groups I am talking about when I say "illegal immigrants" or some shorthand for the same. [editline]d[/editline] [QUOTE=Vodkavia;52634652]Why does this in your view exclude obstructing justice, religious discrimination and acts of treason? [I]"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,"[/I] Nice try, you put your rubber stamp on this. You're accountable.[/QUOTE] To clarify, and for further reference (as I do not want to broach the subject any further in this thread or others), I have not subscribed to any of these concepts and statements and would prefer it if you did not attempt to change the topic to discuss the myriad ambiguities of my political positions.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52634602]I agree with you here in some part -- the law should be respected and enforced in this country not simply because it is made so, but because it is determined just and effected by the will of the people through their duly elected representatives. DACA did not follow this process, but was put in place by executive decree. The President is given that power to use at his discretion, but was it right to sidestep the legislature like this? Was it appropriate for this situation? These are difficult questions that the administration has understandably hesitated to address, since many of DACA's recipients have sympathetic stories, but as a matter of fidelity to our Constitution and its separation of powers -- and to a lesser note, his campaign promises -- Trump must end the program. If we are going to amnesty an entire class of people, I believe it should be done with the consent of our established legislative system. This was the case for the African slave trade, it was the case for indentured servitude and slavery, it was the case for Prohibition, and I fully expect it to be the case for any future questioning of the Second Amendment. I meant no disrespect with that term, and I apologize if it came off that way. However, I think we both understand effectively what groups I am talking about when I say "illegal immigrants" or some shorthand for the same.[/QUOTE] Was it appropriate to sidestep a legislative branch sharply opposed to anything with the presidents name on it, guilty of racial gerrymandering, supportive of voter rights violations, and holding generally anti-immigrant stances (while being opposed to most rational immigration reforms)? You fucking bet it was. And a testament to the fucking separation of powers? Are you fucking serious with that bit? [I]Trump[/I], doing something to justify that? That man has eroded the separation of powers actively several times in his administration. I mean there is just so much in this post I don't even know where to begin. Like the other bit about fidelity to our Constitution: what about fidelity to the spirit of what America is and represents to those who live here? What about fidelity to the inscription upon the Statue of Liberty? Like jfc I'm almost at basic bitch "I can't even"-status with this post. [editline]31st August 2017[/editline] this same man just pardoned a sheriff who was actively racist and bragged of the cruelty he inflicted upon an immigrant population (not ot mention how many citizens were caught in his fuckhuge net of bullshit)

The best thing is, he'll likely never be faced with the reality of what he has done because of the echo chamber he places himself in.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52634602]These are difficult questions that the administration has understandably hesitated to address, since many of DACA's recipients have sympathetic stories, but as a matter of fidelity to our Constitution and its separation of powers -- and to a lesser note, his campaign promises -- Trump must end the program.[/QUOTE] No, no he mustn't. (1) Trump has repeatedly made statements at odds with the US Constitution, both as a candidate and a President. He doesn't even know how many articles it has. He's repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't care about our Constitution or our laws: - Repeated attempts at the unconstitutional Muslim ban - Advocating violence against protesters at his rallies - Advocating police brutality - Receiving money and/or assistance from the Russians during his campaign - Obstruction of justice with the firing of James Comey - Pardoning Joe Arpaio, a racist torturer who gleefully flouted federal court orders telling him to stop violating Latinos' constitutional rights - Two words: emoluments clause And that's just what I could think of off the top of my head. "Fidelity to our constitution" is the [i]very last thing[/i] on Trump's mind. (2) Trump has -- in his repeated personal attacks on federal judges and his promises to unseat Republican senators and congressmen who don't vote his way -- demonstrated that he doesn't care about separation of powers. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Presidency is well within its rights to decide not to enforce immigration laws (and there's an increasing legal precedent that states and municipalities can do this as well). DACA is not unconstitutional, so no, he really mustn't end the program. This strict "it sucks but he's gotta do it" legalism you're hiding behind is a miserable cop-out to avoid criticizing Trump, and it's an increasingly threadbare cop-out at that.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52634602]I agree with you here in some part -- the law should be respected and enforced in this country not simply because it is made so, but because it is determined just and effected by the will of the people through their duly elected representatives.[/QUOTE] Like those helped into office by Putin? It does [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/manafort-notes-russian-meet-contain-cryptic-reference-donations-n797816"]seem[/URL] [URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/31/rnc-chief-of-staff-resigns-amid-rash-of-departures-242212"]that[/URL] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/house-majority-leader-to-colleagues-in-2016-i-think-putin-pays-trump/2017/05/17/515f6f8a-3aff-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?utm_term=.3fea23c0063d"]a lot[/URL] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/national/read-the-transcript-of-the-conversation-among-gop-leaders-obtained-by-the-post/2209/?tid=a_inl"]of the GOP[/URL] is also involved, your argument falls rather flat. [QUOTE=Chonch;52634602]DACA did not follow this process, but was put in place by executive decree. The President is given that power to use at his discretion, but was it right to sidestep the legislature like this? Was it appropriate for this situation?[/QUOTE] Like the [I]unconstitutional[/I] travel ban? Only excluding those he does [URL="https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-second-immigration-ban-conflict-of-interest/"]business[/URL] with. [QUOTE=Chonch;52634602]These are difficult questions that the administration has understandably hesitated to address, since many of DACA's recipients have sympathetic stories, but as a matter of fidelity to our Constitution and its separation of powers -- and to a lesser note, his campaign promises -- Trump must end the program.[/QUOTE] This is retarded. Especially since the instigator doesn't seem to hold your constitution, the judiciary or the separation of power in high regard. Also, on "difficult questions that the administration has understandably hesitated to address", does that count in on Betsy DeVos "[URL="http://itsamoneything.com/money/betsy-devos-expect-return-investment/#.Wah90tFLdPY"]return on investment[/URL]"? Is that draining a swamp, or making it worse? [QUOTE=Chonch;52634602]If we are going to amnesty an entire class of people, I believe it should be done with the consent of our established legislative system.[/QUOTE] Slavery was "[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States"]done with the consent of our established legislative system.[/URL]" You also seem to forget that half the country [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War"]waged war on the other half[/URL] over the issue to make it illegal. Which also seem to poke a few holes in your "united legislative branch" talk. [QUOTE=Chonch;52634602]This was the case for the African slave trade, it was the case for indentured servitude and slavery, it was the case for Prohibition, and I fully expect it to be the case for any future questioning of the Second Amendment.[/QUOTE] I've already touched on slavery, let's move on, shall we? Prohibition [URL="https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/roaring-twenties/essays/prohibition-and-its-effects"]doesn't[/URL] [URL="https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/07/13/marijuana-prohibition-and-the-war-on-drugs-have-utterly-failed"]work[/URL], and simply moves the problem out of sight, and makes it exponentially worse. Regarding the Second Amendment, I'm neutral on the amendment itself, but think proper training and background checks would be nice if it is to be true to its original intention: [URL="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm"]stopping tyrants from taking the helm[/URL]. [QUOTE=Chonch;52634602]I meant no disrespect with that term, and I apologize if it came off that way. However, I think we both understand effectively what groups I am talking about when I say "illegal immigrants" or some shorthand for the same.[/QUOTE] America is [URL="https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/02/02/us-a-nation-of-immigrants-but-ambivalent-about-immigration"]a nation of immigrants[/URL]. By your definition, violent, illegal ones to boot. I think the native Americans would've been happy to see you go. Although I will give you a point for that, if the current US is truly the end result of a nation controlled by immigrants. In which case, you're all part of the problem. To finish off this long rant. All these laws have done, is feed a feelgood need of idiots, and are not based on observable fact, but feels-before-reals, something Trumpers seem to get their sole sustenance from, but even that is getting thin when he basically defends literal [I]nazis[/I]. I've tried arguing with Trumpers before, it's like pulling teeth. All I get is whataboutism or them slinking into the woodwork when it's clear I won't let them move the goalposts. It's pathetic, and you come across as vicious idiots with no sense of reality or empathy for others. [U]Fuck Trump and those who put him where he is.[/U]

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52634652] [I]"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,"[/I] Nice try, you put your rubber stamp on this. You're accountable.[/QUOTE] If Chonch has previously agreed with the Trump quote you used above, then by all means ignore this, but isn't it a little unfair to assume that if somebody supports a political candidate then they agree with everything that candidate has ever said? You can't defeat someone in an argument by making assumptions about them. I know most of us here, myself included, didn't vote for Clinton because we agreed with everything she said during the campaign.

[QUOTE=Mr. Sarcastic;52634759]If Chonch has previously agreed with the Trump quote you used above, then by all means ignore this, but isn't it a little unfair to assume that if somebody supports a political candidate then they agree with everything that candidate has ever said? You can't defeat someone in an argument by making assumptions about them. I know most of us here, myself included, didn't vote for Clinton because we agreed with everything she said during the campaign.[/QUOTE] If you're defending deportation of immigrant kids (regardless of them being illegal immigrants) and also support a man who rather infamously painted an entire country as mostly criminals, I'd be inclined to say that yes, that is a totally fair assumption to make in this case.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52634602]If we are going to amnesty an entire class of people, I believe it should be done with the consent of our established legislative system.[/QUOTE] Trump can directly pardon an utter cunt and rotten-to-the-bone criminal like Arpaio by completely circumventing the judicial branch, but for some reason pardoning people for [I]having been brought into the country as children[/I] should go through every step of the legislative process? Your reasoning is a complete joke.

[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/08/31/the-trump-administration-may-be-about-to-commit-to-17-2-billion-in-additional-spending/"]The WaPo points out that ending DACA and deporting everyone could cost over 17 billion dollars.[/URL] Build a wall, betray and deport a couple million people who consider themselves Americans and trusted the US government, avoid blowing the debt ceiling into space, choose only two.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52634794][URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/08/31/the-trump-administration-may-be-about-to-commit-to-17-2-billion-in-additional-spending/"]The WaPo points out that ending DACA and deporting everyone could cost over $17 billion dollars.[/URL] Build a wall, betray and deport a couple million people who trusted the US government, avoid blowing the debt ceiling into space, choose only two.[/QUOTE] Ladies and Gentlemen, the party of Fiscal Conservatism

[QUOTE=Chonch;52634602]I meant no disrespect with that term, and I apologize if it came off that way. However, I think we both understand effectively what groups I am talking about when I say "illegal immigrants" or some shorthand for the same.[/QUOTE] Undocumented Immigrants is a far better term. Particularly in the case of DACA or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals which is really just a policy that rewarded young people who have lived in the USA for all their life and happened to be undocumented. Ending this policy will, aside from the humanitarian cost, have [url=http://fortune.com/2017/08/31/daca-dreamers-jobs-donald-trump/]quite the financial impact[/url]. Why do you think this should end? Is it just about principle? Because you're a stalwart defender of constitutional norms? Because if you were principled defender of constitutional checks and balances I'm pretty sure you would be calling for Donald Trump's impeachment. Is there some other reason that you have for ending a policy that does a great amount of good?

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52634804]Ladies and Gentlemen, the party of Fiscal Conservatism[/QUOTE] I don't think they or particularly vocal Christians really have any actual ideals anymore it's just a game of sportsball to them at this point.

Supervillains are real and one of them is POTUS. I don't see any logical reason for this action other than enjoying the suffering of others. I just can't.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52634835]Undocumented Immigrants is a far better term. Particularly in the case of DACA or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals which is really just a policy that rewarded young people who have lived in the USA for all their life and happened to be undocumented. Ending this policy will, aside from the humanitarian cost, have [URL="http://fortune.com/2017/08/31/daca-dreamers-jobs-donald-trump/"]quite the financial impact[/URL]. Why do you think this should end? Is it just about principle? Because you're a stalwart defender of constitutional norms? Because if you were principled defender of constitutional checks and balances I'm pretty sure you would be calling for Donald Trump's impeachment. Is there some other reason that you have for ending a policy that does a great amount of good?[/QUOTE] DACA does not provide lawful status. "Illegal immigrant" is an appropriate term, and the one I will use going forward to avoid confusion. Feel free to use whatever words you want so long as we both understand about who and what we're discussing. As for my 'constitutionalist' position on the expected removal of DACA, I'm comfortable with the amount of clarity my previous posts provide. Are there specific points that aren't clear? [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52634794][URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/08/31/the-trump-administration-may-be-about-to-commit-to-17-2-billion-in-additional-spending/"]The WaPo points out that ending DACA and deporting everyone could cost over 17 billion dollars.[/URL] Build a wall, betray and deport a couple million people who consider themselves Americans and trusted the US government, avoid blowing the debt ceiling into space, choose only two.[/QUOTE] While impressive and disconcerting, this estimate represents a one-time sum that could be spread out over a period of time, provided ICE decides to immediately start deporting DACA's recipients. I have my doubts on that front.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52634429]It's not pretty, and I'm sure the program was never intended to be taken out so soon after its establishment, but we must remember that it was also never intended to be more than a precarious stop-gap while waiting for the proper Congressional balance to provide a permanent solution for these illegals. It's depressing, but it's reality.[/QUOTE] also really late but i forgot to address this: daca being a temporary holdover does not [i]in any conceivable way[/i] justify nuking the program without a permanent solution, so no you can't say "ah~ but it was never meant to be permanent, so it's okay for trump to abruptly end it~" that's total bullshit let's say you have millions of houston refugees whose homes are gone, temporarily living in a football stadium until congress approves funding to rebuild their communities -- and then the governor abruptly kicks them out of the stadium and busses them back to the flooded streets of houston, before congress has even had a chance to debate the issue. is that legally and morally okay, simply because they weren't going to live in the stadium permanently? [i]of course it's goddamn not[/i] cut out the intellectual dishonesty chonch, we know you're smarter than this and you know we're smarter than this [editline]31st August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Chonch;52635055]DACA does not provide lawful status. "Illegal immigrant" is an appropriate term, and the one I will use going forward to avoid confusion. Feel free to use whatever words you want so long as we both understand about who and what we're discussing. As for my 'constitutionalist' position on the expected removal of DACA, I'm comfortable with the amount of clarity my previous posts provide. Are there specific points that aren't clear?[/QUOTE] haha great job glossing over or ignoring all our previous posts where we pointed out that everything you said about "it's okay for trump to do this because constitution and separation of powers" was completely wrong, that way you don't have to come up with actual counterpoints defending the holes in your argument you don't get to say "show me where i was wrong!" when we [i]already did[/i]

[QUOTE=GayIlluminati;52634700]The best thing is, he'll likely never be faced with the reality of what he has done because of the echo chamber he places himself in.[/QUOTE] I hope Hurricane Irma tears him out of the White House and rips him to bloody ribbons. I will keep it in my prayers.